Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can Ed win support for state funding of political parties?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can Ed win support for state funding of political parties?

Friday's Independent – "Labour says taxpayers may have to pay more for political parties" #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/Y76Gg8yWhB

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • State funding of political parties? Get stuffed.
  • No
  • After the expenses scandal and austerity, it would be a very courageous politician* who would propose state funding of political parties

    *Courageous politician in Sir Humphrey sense
  • It works OK in countries that are far better governed than we are, but it will never work here. Mass membership is the way forward, along with a cap on donations.
  • antifrank said:

    State funding of political parties? Get stuffed.

    squared cubed.....
  • If political parties can't raise enough money to sustain themselves from voluntary donations, then they should go under. Given the calibre of the current mainstream parties, that might be no bad thing.
  • Any politician espousing state funding of political parties should FOAD!

    It seems a terrible shame that the liberal application of tar and feathers to these rent seeking, statist parasites is illegal.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    It'll never happen.
  • People will support people with honour, honesty and integrity. So Labour are stuffed. And the others are not far behind. I would pay a donation to stop some pollies standing though, that would catch on.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,191
    If political parties cannot command support from the general population, they have lost their raison d'etre. Taxation should fund services, not political activity. Parties need to reconnect with the views of the people they are supposed to represent. A donations cap also has to be enforced.
  • Pretty much unanimous against, early in the thread.
    We're probably each individually answering one of 3 separate but linked questions
    - Can Ed win support?
    - Do I support it?
    - Will it happen?
  • If ed thinks that state funding of political parties is ever going to be acceptable by the public then he's an utter utter fool
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    It'd be hugely unpopular, especially in the current "all parties are rubbish" mood. Coupled with ferocious restrictions on donations above say £5K I can see it just about getting a hearing, but I can't see it being seriously proposed.

    Mind you, I think that the American-style anyone-can-spend-anything approach espoused by Richard N - even with a tax break! - being equally unpopular. I think we'll need to struggle on with much the current system.
  • If state funding replaces individual donors, how will party leaders know who to send to the Lords?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    antifrank said:

    State funding of political parties? Get stuffed.

    squared cubed.....
    Ditto

    It also entrenchs a certain mind view - another block to insurgent ideas developing. I may think UKIP is a dreadful party which will do untold damage to this country, but they have the right to express their beliefs and compete for the attention of the voters.
  • It works OK in countries that are far better governed than we are, but it will never work here. Mass membership is the way forward, along with a cap on donations.

    That's very noble SO, but Labour are clearly getting worried they won't get the numbers
  • Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    In the USA taxpayers are registered as either Republican or Democrat if they choose to do so and have the option of ticking a box on their tax return to contribute to party funds.

    If they tick no, they pay the same tax, and the money goes to general funds instead. At least this used to be the system when I lived there.

    £1 per tax payer per year should just about cover it in the UK. It also logs party affiliation for Primaries.

    Mass membership political parties are history. Even the party of fruitcakes has a tiny membership compared with the number of voters and internet trolls.
  • 10 year gilt jumped to 3% yesterday official interest rates will follow long before 2016. So much for forward guidance.
  • Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Incidentally, yesterday's dramatic YouGov swing to approval of the Government (-31 to -23) despite no particular change in voting intention was reversed today (from -23 to -32), also without a significant shift in VI (Labour lead moving from 6 to 7). Not obvious why this question should gyrate wildly - it doesn't usually - so just shows the risks of drawing conclusions from any one poll.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @ALP FPT

    I'm not trying to be incognito, per se, but don't want to advertise my name. If people want to take the necessary 30 seconds to figure out who I am from google they can do that. Or they can just look at my avatar (my personal message to David Cameron) and identify where it is - that is a nice clue as well.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,191
    All evidence points to traditional hegemony fracturing, as vote shares for trad parties decreases. So to try and sustain a two or three party hegemony through state funding: "we'll give you a choice between the left, middle, and right parties" between which's views you could barely drive a piece of toilet paper, seems deeply against the type of retail politics that people seem to be looking for. In this climate, its PR hat's needed, to diversify the voices in Parliament and make them more responsive to their electorate.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    As Mr Collins notes http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/philipcollins/article3861835.ece

    "The troubling fact is that Labour really needs the money. With a general election due in two years and the party desperately struggling to pay its bills, the loss of a million pounds is a severe blow. If Unison and Unite follow suit, Labour will not be able to fight the election.

    The clever thing to have done would have been to build up cash deposits before taking on the unions. Instead, by first neglecting a problem that time and again he was warned would hurt him, and by then responding in a frenzy, Mr Miliband has done the equivalent of Arthur Scargill calling a strike just when the other side was at its most powerful.

    The best response would be to use this opportunity to widen the basis of funding, as left-of-centre parties do successfully in the United States, Germany and France. That will require an appeal that is broader than the one Mr Miliband currently offers. The parlous nature of Labour Party finances is more of a consequence of its poor electoral prospects than it is a primary cause..."
  • Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
    OK, headline doesn't match the article. Moral: Don't believe everything you in newspapers, and don't believe anything you read in newspaper headlines.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    edited September 2013
    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?
  • 10 year gilt jumped to 3% yesterday official interest rates will follow long before 2016. So much for forward guidance.

    As pointed out yesterday, central banks don't set interest rates anymore. Markets do. Governments are getting ever deeper into debt and are riskier investments as a result - many scarily and unsustainably so (Japan, GIPSIs, etc). Also OECD economic performance seems to be rising up off the bottom of a deep trough. Both put upward pressue on interest rates.

    Carney can keep base rates as low as he likes - but that doesn't mean businesses, mortgage holders or governments will continue to get cheap credit.

  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited September 2013
    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.

    That the state itself doesn't represent vested interests is a convenient ideological fiction. State funding of political parties will not take the "big money" out of politics, but merely substitute one type of "big money" for another.
  • Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
    OK, headline doesn't match the article. Moral: Don't believe everything you in newspapers, and don't believe anything you read in newspaper headlines.
    You've only just realised that ?

  • To give my view in a slightly more considered form: if Labour wish to hire Elvis impersonators and the Conservatives wish to employ airbrushers, they can find willing idiots to give them the money to do so.

    If political parties cannot attract the support or the money to carry out the activities that they would like to carry out, that's their problem not the general public's. In an age of austerity, state support of political parties ranks somewhere between offering free heroin to all junkies and nationalising donkey sanctuaries.
  • SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
  • Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
    OK, headline doesn't match the article. Moral: Don't believe everything you in newspapers, and don't believe anything you read in newspaper headlines.
    You've only just realised that ?

    No, I was hoping to explain in to Henry...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
    OK, headline doesn't match the article. Moral: Don't believe everything you in newspapers, and don't believe anything you read in newspaper headlines.
    I'm more cynical than you EiT.

    The second tweet gives the game away - let's bankrupt the parties and then we'll have a good argument for state funding.

    Interesting the sole arguments Tim has put forward for £5k is the damage it would do to the Tories

  • It's pretty self-evident that having political parties funded by a few wealthy and influential backers is bad for politics. I strongly agree with low caps for party donations.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    We already pay over £600,000 a year for the office of the Leader of the Opposition. This is presumably to pay for those who help Miliband come up with such clever questions.

    The reason Labour is not having a melt down about the threat to Union funding is that they are getting £5.5m a year plus their travelling costs from public funds. This, not all these famous small donations, is what is paying off their overdraft and a major reason why the Union donations form a more modest part of their income.

    I mention these facts not to make a party political point (before the election the tories were getting over £4m) but because they do not sit particularly comfortably with the almost universal view on this thread that public funding of political parties is completely unacceptable. That horse left the stable a long time ago. The only question is how much and whether it should increase to allow a cap on private donations of the type mooted.

    Here I am with the majority. The biggest flaw in our political class is that they are completely detached from the real world and live a life of University activist, SPAD, MP, Minister that gives them no experience of how we actually make a living and pay for them.

    I really can't see that getting any better if they don't even need to solicit our money.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    State funding = welfare.

    Labour are too lazy to raise enough money - no more cash to the workshy.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    It seems that arguments these days have to cater to the lowest common denominator which says `Not my money for the politicians` eventhough elected politicians can easily influence vast sums of money as you say.They also have influence on everyone`s job,health, kids` education,housing prices, benefits and pretty much everything else.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    A funding cap just opens the door to nonaffiliated PACs. does anyone think the TPA supports Labour, or Migration watch?

    Similarly some charities such as Shelter, which gets quite large grants from public funds, do they support the Tories?

    We would just be creating a lot of unregulated front organizations with a funding cap.
    Charles said:

    Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
    OK, headline doesn't match the article. Moral: Don't believe everything you in newspapers, and don't believe anything you read in newspaper headlines.
    I'm more cynical than you EiT.

    The second tweet gives the game away - let's bankrupt the parties and then we'll have a good argument for state funding.

    Interesting the sole arguments Tim has put forward for £5k is the damage it would do to the Tories

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited September 2013

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 million.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2013
    “Can Ed win support for state funding of political parties?”

    You can always find people to support the idea of someone else paying – But if you mean support from the general Tax paying public, then your answer is a resounding NO.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
  • Here's a potentially naive question - but why do political parties NEED (as opposed to want) much money at all?

    Their MPs are paid by the state, they get airtime on TV. OK they need a bit for membership, admin, adverts etc - but they could surely survive on next to nothing if they had to.

    If all parties were forced to get by on 10% of what they had now would they cease to exist or merely have to cut out the marketing and froth? A huge cut in funds for all parties might be a very good thing. Make them effectively voluntary organisations rather than lobby magnets.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    A funding cap just opens the door to nonaffiliated PACs. does anyone think the TPA supports Labour, or Migration watch?

    Similarly some charities such as Shelter, which gets quite large grants from public funds, do they support the Tories?

    We would just be creating a lot of unregulated front organizations with a funding cap.


    Charles said:

    Who's actually floating this, and do they really represent the leadership? I think it's a good idea but the voters won't.

    John Denham, story is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-5000-cap-on-donations-debtladen-labour-call-for-state-funding-of-political-parties-8800881.html
    OK, headline doesn't match the article. Moral: Don't believe everything you in newspapers, and don't believe anything you read in newspaper headlines.
    I'm more cynical than you EiT.

    The second tweet gives the game away - let's bankrupt the parties and then we'll have a good argument for state funding.

    Interesting the sole arguments Tim has put forward for £5k is the damage it would do to the Tories

    I agree - it's the whole *reality meets nice idea* of the Lobbying Bill.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    edited September 2013
    I have been predicting a modest rise in interest rates next year now for months and grow more confident with every increasing forecast.

    Where I differ from Tim is that this is undoubtedly a good thing and evidence that the economy is in fact recovering more quickly. Our current base rate is not a new norm but evidence of the horrendous damage done during the crash. It is a tax on the saver, the pensioner and anyone who has to buy an annuity designed to help banks and the over borrowed.

    Interest rate increases will not burst any putative housing bubble but they are an essential tool in ensuring that the house price recovery does not spill over into undesirable side effects.

    Interest rate rises are not just being driven by a recovering economy. They are also being driven by international factors as several developing countries have been drawing down on their capital to protect their domestic currencies. Whilst access to these funds has clearly helped western economies the reduction of these balances is also a good thing.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited September 2013
    Patrick said:

    Here's a potentially naive question - but why do political parties NEED (as opposed to want) much money at all?

    Their MPs are paid by the state, they get airtime on TV. OK they need a bit for membership, admin, adverts etc - but they could surely survive on next to nothing if they had to.

    If all parties were forced to get by on 10% of what they had now would they cease to exist or merely have to cut out the marketing and froth? A huge cut in funds for all parties might be a very good thing. Make them effectively voluntary organisations rather than lobby magnets.

    I recall Mandy saying that Labour were so broke that they spent virtually nothing at the last GE - but then I read elsewhere recently they spent £8m which is quite a lot but not huge for a four week on the ground campaign. Anyone have the figs for the others handy? IIRC the total spent by them all was nowhere near the actual cap for election spending during a GE which I found surprising.

    "...One homelessness charity warns that the “lobbying bill will effectively gag us as a charity to campaign.” The charity complains that the new law will limit spending to about £9,000 per constituency, of which 60% could be spent in the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the election.

    This compares to £12,000 that can be spent by an individual candidate and the £30,000 that each party can spend nationally per constituency. As charities are not allowed to take part in party political campaigning or supporting political candidates there is no reason for them to be affected by the law at all...

    Other third party groups will see the limits on their expenditure controlled. This will ensure that the highly regulated party spending in election campaigns cannot be swamped by a succession of similar pressure groups. Although the law does not allow concert parties with formal cooperation it is not difficult to have enough separation to avoid this situation. Parties are limited to £19.5 million for their national campaigns but at the last election Labour only spent £8 million so if the current limit on third parties remained, eight third parties could outspend one of the main participants.

    As they will be less well known and may not make their aims entirely clear limiting this to £388,080 is an important safeguard..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10286333/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Why-should-you-pay-for-charities-to-lobby-the-Government.html
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    Then what's being proposed is simply state funding with donor top up allowing Labor and the Tories to replace their major funders. Money for nothing.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Why on earth should the taxpayer fund the Labour party any more than we already do? It is as bad as the fact we have to fund the trade unions. Let them stand or fall on their own.

    Labour reduced a generation to penury in retirement so seeing the Labour party go bust would be rather good.

    Frankly far too much money is spent on political campaigns and elections now. Get politicians back on to the streets and round the doors and cut the so called high-tech and expensive campaigning which frankly just irritates the hell out of most voters. It worked for John Major in 1992.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Utterly pissing it down in Yorkshire.

    FPT: Mr. Dugarbandier, slight surprise to me, but I think that the team he bought was considered the unofficial Spanish team and he's been into cycling personally for a long time. He also has the dosh to do it, and it might provide him with a sporting interest once he leaves F1.

    The first practice session at Monza starts in just over an hour.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    antifrank said:

    State funding of political parties? Get stuffed.

    Hear! Hear!

    Political parties have no right to exist if they cannot persuade anyone to join them or pay for them. If they can't they're dead and there is no reason why the rest of us should be forced to finance them.

    They need to adapt or die. And if they only have a reduced income, well, too bad. They'll have to live within their income, just like the rest of us. Boo hoo!

    The arrogance of such a suggestion is staggering. It's like those MPs caught with their fingers in the till over expenses then demanding an increased salary.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    But excluding union subventions. It's just a bullsh1t political move
  • On-topic: I concur with the underlying sentiment of Mr. Manson. This is not on. If a party will die without taxpayer funding then let it die. Democracy is a choice, and if I choose not to fund a party then that party (or any other) has no right to compel me to do so.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    Then what's being proposed is simply state funding with donor top up allowing Labor and the Tories to replace their major funders. Money for nothing.
    Not quite.When donations are restricted to £5000 that would have a massive drop in funding for the main parties(wealthy donors for Tories vs Unions for Labour).State funding will help fill the hole and along with spending caps will create a workable system.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    But excluding union subventions. It's just a bullsh1t political move
    Yup. I can't see how anyone can police the off balance sheet assistance. If the Unions do canvassing work on behalf of Labour or Lord Ashcroft spends £ 5 million on polling and only gives it to his mates how does that get included in the sums ?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Has the lid been removed from the boiling pot that most people did not know was even on the stove?

    Away from the greenhouse atmosphere of PB, it is highly likely that 99% of the electorate does not know of the existence of Short Money or what it stands for - indeed if they knew that Labour was paying off its overdraft using taxpayers' money there could be an outcry and the existence of Short Money could be in danger.

    In the 1600s-1700s the UK avoided a French-style revolution. Perhaps it is time to bring back Tyburn Tree and the chains at Wapping. A la lanterne les politiciens!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    Then what's being proposed is simply state funding with donor top up allowing Labor and the Tories to replace their major funders. Money for nothing.
    Not quite.When donations are restricted to £5000 that would have a massive drop in funding for the main parties(wealthy donors for Tories vs Unions for Labour).State funding will help fill the hole and along with spending caps will create a workable system.

    yes I know the proposal but it's riddled with holes. The only permissable extra income should be membership fees and merchandising.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Financier said:

    Has the lid been removed from the boiling pot that most people did not know was even on the stove?

    Away from the greenhouse atmosphere of PB, it is highly likely that 99% of the electorate does not know of the existence of Short Money or what it stands for - indeed if they knew that Labour was paying off its overdraft using taxpayers' money there could be an outcry and the existence of Short Money could be in danger.

    In the 1600s-1700s the UK avoided a French-style revolution. Perhaps it is time to bring back Tyburn Tree and the chains at Wapping. A la lanterne les politiciens!

    I didn't know about Short Money until I saw it mentioned on PB a few years ago and Googled it. Most I talk to have never heard of it and are WTF? when they do.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    But excluding union subventions. It's just a bullsh1t political move
    They will be included, I'll have a bet with you if you like
    The issue isn't direct contributions but indirect assistance. Parties will simply cheat outside the rules.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited September 2013
    I have no idea how to format this but it's a post yesterday from Richard Nabavi with a simple but logical reply from AnneJP an excellent but very infrequent poster

    RichardNabavi said:

    Personally I don't think it's a conundrum at all. The idea that money forcibly extracted on threat of imprisonment from honest taxpayers should be donated to a party, with whom they might violently disagree, is repulsive, especially since almost by definition any state funding will entrench the status quo. Conversely, if an honest citizen wants to give her own money to support a party because she thinks it will make the country a better place, why on earth shouldn't she?

    AnneJP replied;

    I have no problem at all with the TUs funding the political party they were instrumental in setting up to represent the interests of ordinary people. Equally, I have no problem at all with wealthy business-people funding a political party that represents their interests.

    But if society as a whole is now saying that one or the other or both leads to the donors acquiring too much influence, then it follows that no political party should have more money available to it than any other.

    Taxpayers are not consulted over any of the destinations of their money. Pacifists have no means of diverting their taxes from Defence to somewhere else. Anti-abortionists cannot divert their taxes from NHS abortion clinics.

    Society has deemed certain things to be public goods, worth paying for from taxation. If political parties are a necessary part of democracy, then they may be a public good in the same way.

    I do not know enough about the functioning of democratic systems to hazard a guess whether political parties are necessary.


  • It is sensible and reasonable for the govt to promote involvement in politics. For example, paying for an annual mailing to every voter from every party would be proportionate.

    But giving polital parties cash to pay for the costs of spinmeisters, or advertising hoardings at election times? No thanks.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2013
    Plato said:

    Financier said:

    Has the lid been removed from the boiling pot that most people did not know was even on the stove?

    Away from the greenhouse atmosphere of PB, it is highly likely that 99% of the electorate does not know of the existence of Short Money or what it stands for - indeed if they knew that Labour was paying off its overdraft using taxpayers' money there could be an outcry and the existence of Short Money could be in danger.

    In the 1600s-1700s the UK avoided a French-style revolution. Perhaps it is time to bring back Tyburn Tree and the chains at Wapping. A la lanterne les politiciens!

    I didn't know about Short Money until I saw it mentioned on PB a few years ago and Googled it. Most I talk to have never heard of it and are WTF? when they do.
    Ditto, until about 4 years ago and Mr Senior kindly explained all - I doubt more than 5% of the general public have ever heard of it.
  • Mr. Roger, Miss JP's general point about taxpayer preference not affecting how their money is spent is valid, but in this particular instance it's not correct.

    That's because the parties are players of the game, but they're seeking to change the rules to their own advantage. Furthermore, democracy is a battle of ideas. Who can persuade more people to vote for them, or donate to them? If you can simply alter the system and seize money paid for by people who have no liking for you but pay tax that's immoral.

    There's no general clamour for a cap on donations because we don't have huge levels of spending, and we already have caps on expenditure. Let unions and the wealthy give their money, if they want to, and leave taxpayers' money alone.

    It's also a politically stupid move. The Conservatives will just oppose it, leaving the public entirely opposed to Labour and on the side of the blues.

    Of course, if Miliband hadn't just lost £1m of union funding...
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Some PB posters should realise that many people who are not card carrying members of a political party are willing to help campaign on its behalf from time to time. Confusing party membership with party support is unwise. Many people are not party members because they are unwilling to pay a minimum sum.

    If the political parties wish to boost their membership, their subscriptions should revert to being affordable to most, not the few.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.

    One of the main reasons that we need to end the spare room subsidy is that people whose families have left school are continuing to under occupy state subsidised housing as a right.

    There would be a lot more childrens bedrooms avaliable if the under occupiers moved out, and families who are currently in overcrowded conditions can have access to them.

    It is also worth pointing out that Boarders in public schools often have multiple occupancy dorms in which they do far more reading and studying than the average council house.

    So take your violin elsewhere tim, and spare us the cant.
    tim said:

    Camerons decision to hit people who choose to take care of their own disabled relatives looked hypocritical.

    @EmmaReynoldsMP: Michael Gove says chIldren do better at school if they have their own bedrooms, how does he explain his support for bedroom tax?

    Does the Messiah Gove speak for the govt in his finely honed educational critique of the bedroom tax's impact on child development?
    Is Cameron seriously determined to damage poor child's educational achievements deliberately?

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    Why on earth should the taxpayer fund the Labour party any more than we already do?

    Unfortunately for most taxpayers we end up funding the Tories indirectly. Every time they hive off a piece of the State to a flailing private sector "provider" (which coincidentally seems to have donated to the Tories) my taxpayer pounds prop up this destructive, disreputable Party of selfish ideologues on the make.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Frankfurter Allgemeine, UK has given up on policing world order and is resigning itself to being a second rank power. The consequences of the PPE boys screw up goes on.

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/grossbritannien-die-imperialen-zeiten-sind-vorbei-12561599.html
  • The current rules on funding candidates and political parties appear to be fairly complex in detail. It might be useful to get a summary of the current legislation, when each piece was introduced, and the pressures (i.e. scandals) that caused the change.

    It would inform us as to why we have ended up where we are, and warn us of any problems in future proposed legislation.

    On short money: it was introduced because parties in government get benefits from their access to the civil service (which should not be used for party-political purposes). Does the existence of short money cause government parties to use the civil service in this manner more than they would anyway?

    In which case, it could be rather counter-productive.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Coming to the conclusion that UK politics is seriously underfunded. In an era that has Obama $1b campaign, sugar water and phone marketing budgets top $4b annually , £10m really doesn't cut it.



  • state funding.. No way... another nice one Ed.
  • Mr. Jonathan, *I'm* underfunded. I eagerly await the Morris Dancer Subsidy Act, which will give the modest sum of £1m per annum to ensure that my wiffle sticks are suitably oiled, Castle Morris Dancer can be maintained properly and the important work of genetic research into land-walking, hyper-intelligent superfish can continue without petty financial concerns.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    For a country whose GDP is 1 trillion,state funding would cost 30 million a year.Peanuts for a system which takes much of the vested interest out of the equation.Especially given the government manages the 1 trillion.Good value?

    Agreed, given the amount of public money politicians allocate even a marginal reduction in their bribability will result in a net profit to the taxpayer.

    But good luck persuading them of that.
    given Labour and the Conservatives are running through £ 25 -30 million per annum each, £ 30 million isn't going to cover party expenses The major UK parties have income of about £ 70 m a year, and in a GE year that soars to closer to £100 milliom.
    State funding would be brought in with a cap on spending by the parties.

    What cap is being proposed ?
    The reason it`s not proposed openly because any talk about it results in negative headlines as today.But Ed has proposed a cap on donations to £5000 accompanied by a spending cap on the parties.
    But excluding union subventions. It's just a bullsh1t political move
    They will be included, I'll have a bet with you if you like
    That's been the issue that has led to Labour killing reform plans over the last 3-5 years.

    Can't repost easily - in an all day meeting. Feel free to quote me.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    Some PB posters should realise that many people who are not card carrying members of a political party are willing to help campaign on its behalf from time to time. Confusing party membership with party support is unwise. Many people are not party members because they are unwilling to pay a minimum sum.

    If the political parties wish to boost their membership, their subscriptions should revert to being affordable to most, not the few.

    I like the idea of an affiliate membership = no rights to vote but loosely recognised with invites to member events as a soft way in. But TBH, until the Parties become more inclusive and reach out locally - they're on a hiding to nothing.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2013
    Jonathan said:

    Coming to the conclusion that UK politics is seriously underfunded. In an era that has Obama $1b campaign, sugar water and phone marketing budgets top $4b annually , £10m really doesn't cut it.

    Personally I’d rather the UK not go down the same route as the US wrt party expenditure.

    On a side note, Barry’s billions came from small individual donations and private business uses er, private money. – I don’t see what the relevance is or justification for Tax payer money being hived off to fund political parties.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Politics is in a rut. Something needs to happen to get it going again.

    Maybe the state can offer a compromise. A one off payment/loan to kick start all the parties. They each get £50m. Up to them how they get on. But this is it. After that its all small individual donations or nothing.

    Some parties will use the money wisely to set mass movements. The others will die.

  • @Jonathan
    "Coming to the conclusion that UK politics is seriously underfunded. In an era that has Obama $1b campaign, sugar water and phone marketing budgets top $4b annually , £10m really doesn't cut it."

    Really ? is it necessarily obvious that with party funding, more is better ?
    Isn't the American system pretty much an arms race - drawing effort into outbidding your rival, rather than winning the argument?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    First Phone Farage on LBC after 9am this morning - this should be good

    http://ukrp.musicradio.com/lbc973/live?rpMsp=3
  • Are there any thoughts on Toby Young's attempt to become Conservative MP for Hammersmith ?

    I suspect his attempts at a political career will match those of Iain Dale for success.
  • F1: just checked and practice will be on BBC2 at 8.55am, for those interested and able to watch.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Mr. Jonathan, *I'm* underfunded. I eagerly await the Morris Dancer Subsidy Act, which will give the modest sum of £1m per annum to ensure that my wiffle sticks are suitably oiled, Castle Morris Dancer can be maintained properly and the important work of genetic research into land-walking, hyper-intelligent superfish can continue without petty financial concerns.

    Pah Mr Dancer think yourself underfunded ? here at Brooke Towers we're in dire need of a duckhouse, the moat hasn't been drained in ages and we're actually having to pay for our own online porn. it's scandalous, I need at least £5 million annually to fund my party the Brooke Bacchanalian League.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited September 2013
    State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE.
    BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc.
    And if not,why not?
    Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Torrington, TORRIDGE DC

    Catherine SIMMONS - GREEN 292
    Robin JULIAN - UKIP 181
    David COX - IND 160
    Adrian FREELAND - IND 106
    Phil PESTER - CON 88

    Go Green ! Doesn't breakfast taste so much better with results like this !
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited September 2013
    Surbiton.. Why?.. what dream has the Green peddled?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Fat_Steve said:

    @Jonathan
    "Coming to the conclusion that UK politics is seriously underfunded. In an era that has Obama $1b campaign, sugar water and phone marketing budgets top $4b annually , £10m really doesn't cut it."

    Really ? is it necessarily obvious that with party funding, more is better ?
    Isn't the American system pretty much an arms race - drawing effort into outbidding your rival, rather than winning the argument?

    Political parties lag far behind commercial marketing in getting their message/product across. They look relatively cheap and ineffective, because they are cheap.

    I would argue that politics is more important than sugar water and should be taken more seriously.

    Surely we can do better than those tired home brew leaflets that pretend to be local papers.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    F1: just checked and practice will be on BBC2 at 8.55am, for those interested and able to watch.

    @Morris_Dancer

    Wish I could watch - what is the weather forecast there for the weekend?

    Currently have been playing email tennis since 6am with a Lithuanian client who is getting me so annoyed that I am tempted to tell them where to put their business.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE.
    BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc.
    And if not,why not?
    Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.

    Quite. Sinn Fein got Short Money and didn't even turn up in HoC! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money#2010.2F2011_allocations
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Utterly pissing it down in Yorkshire.

    FPT: Mr. Dugarbandier, slight surprise to me, but I think that the team he bought was considered the unofficial Spanish team and he's been into cycling personally for a long time. He also has the dosh to do it, and it might provide him with a sporting interest once he leaves F1.

    wouldn't mind some drizzle. too hot here!

    the team was more Basque than spanish, sponsored by the basque region and a basque telecom company- seems it won't be that anymore, but still spanish. A lot better than all the staff losing their jobs/being taking over by a mentalist russian oligarch which seemed to be the other alternatives. I listened to a cycling podcast which waxed lyrical about(and suggested googling) Alonso's calves... on account of the 8000km he has apparently cycled this year.

    Good on him, I say.

    If only Gareth Bale could chuck some small change the way of Kettering Town in a similar spirit of convivilaity...
  • Jonothon .50 million .. are you insane.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Parties shouldn't waste money on crap ads, and crap advisors if they can't live on £10m. There is no way I would want to see a funding situation similar to the US.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE.
    BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc.
    And if not,why not?
    Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.

    Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    General Election @UKELECTIONS2015
    7 out of 10 results now in

    vote share so far

    6,198 votes cast

    Con 29.96%
    Lab 23.44%
    UKIP 18.74%
    LibDem 13.68%
    Indy 12.22%
    Greens 4.94%
  • Jonathan ..Lawyers will already be rubbing their hands on that one.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pensioners should also be included in the removal of the spare bedroom subsidy. Indeed all social hoysing should be on short tenure, such as 5 year lease, with the property and tenant re evaluated according to changed circumstances. This would allow a sensible reallocation of housing stock.

    In terms of child development, parental involvement in schooling and interest in homework is a far bigger detrrminant than whether home work is done in bedroom rather than kitchen table, or indeed done at all.

    As you so frequently point out immigrant families do well academically, but are notably in more overcrowded accommodation. Parental interest rather than bedrooms is the key.

    tim said:

    To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.

    One of the main reasons that we need to end the spare room subsidy is that people whose families have left school are continuing to under occupy state subsidised housing as a right.

    There would be a lot more childrens bedrooms avaliable if the under occupiers moved out, and families who are currently in overcrowded conditions can have access to them.

    It is also worth pointing out that Boarders in public schools often have multiple occupancy dorms in which they do far more reading and studying than the average council house.

    So take your violin elsewhere tim, and spare us the cant.


    tim said:

    Camerons decision to hit people who choose to take care of their own disabled relatives looked hypocritical.

    @EmmaReynoldsMP: Michael Gove says chIldren do better at school if they have their own bedrooms, how does he explain his support for bedroom tax?

    Does the Messiah Gove speak for the govt in his finely honed educational critique of the bedroom tax's impact on child development?
    Is Cameron seriously determined to damage poor child's educational achievements deliberately?

    Rubbish, if that was the aim the Tories wouldn't have excluded pensioners from the bedroom tax for political reasons.
    Cameron chose to exclude the largest group of "under occupiers" and direct it firmly at other groups instead.

    I assume Gove had read the research on child development before he opened his mouth
  • Mr. Financier, I checked the forecasts on Wednesday. Then there was a low chance of rain on Saturday and Sunday.

    Mr. Dugarbandier, I might be wrong but I think that's slightly out of date. The team *was* Basque, but then opened up to become Spanish more generally in a bid to get more sponsorship.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806



    It is sensible and reasonable for the govt to promote involvement in politics. For example, paying for an annual mailing to every voter from every party would be proportionate.

    But giving polital parties cash to pay for the costs of spinmeisters, or advertising hoardings at election times? No thanks.

    Of course, it would help smaller parties like ukip.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    Are there any thoughts on Toby Young's attempt to become Conservative MP for Hammersmith ?

    I suspect his attempts at a political career will match those of Iain Dale for success.

    @TristramHuntMP: From Michael Young to Toby Young: the most terrifying dynastic collapse since the Habsburgs http://t.co/BBtoT8Gzea
    I don't get this tim. shouldn't this Hunt post be about Foppy the Twit from Twit School ?
  • Jonathan said:

    State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE.
    BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc.
    And if not,why not?
    Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.

    Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.

    Could do, but that would be a huge block on start-up parties. It would make the next UKIP very difficult to get off the ground.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    People saying political parties that can't get a mass membership should die - true - are missing the point that they don't die. They become rent-boys for lobbyists instead.

    If people want an actual democracy rather than the totally corrupt lobbyist-cracy we've got now where it's either unions on one side or corporatist crooks on the other then that will require some kind of active measure like state funding or low and well-policed funding caps.

    You don't save money by letting corporate crooks buy the political process. You pay much more in the resulting cartel prices than you'd pay in state funding.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE.
    BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc.
    And if not,why not?
    Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.

    Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.

    Could do, but that would be a huge block on start-up parties. It would make the next UKIP very difficult to get off the ground.

    There could be a specific mechanism for that. A breakthrough loan or matched funding.

    Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
This discussion has been closed.